Skip to main content
Glama
kingdomseed

Structured Workflow MCP

by kingdomseed

lint_guidance

Verify code quality during development by providing structured guidance for the LINT phase to audit work and ensure disciplined programming practices.

Instructions

Get guidance for the LINT phase - verifying code quality

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Primary handler implementation: Specific LINT phase guidance object returned for 'lint_guidance' tool call in suggestive mode, containing objectives, instructions, expected outputs, and next steps.
    lint_guidance: {
      phase: 'LINT',
      objective: 'Verify code quality and catch any issues',
      instructions: [
        'Run all relevant linters for your language/framework',
        'Run type checkers if using a typed language',
        'Execute any available test suites',
        'Check for common issues like unused imports',
        'Document all issues found'
      ],
      suggestedApproach: [
        'Start with syntax and type checking',
        'Then run style/formatting linters',
        'Run tests if available',
        'Check for security issues if relevant',
        'Prioritize errors over warnings'
      ],
      expectedOutput: {
        lintResults: 'Output from all linters run',
        errors: 'List of errors that must be fixed',
        warnings: 'List of warnings to consider',
        testResults: 'Results from any tests run',
        metrics: 'Code quality metrics if available'
      },
      nextPhase: 'If issues found, use iterate_guidance. Otherwise, use present_guidance'
    },
  • Handler implementation for directive mode: Enhanced LINT phase guidance with mandatory instructions, required output files, and validation criteria for 'lint_guidance' tool.
    lint_guidance: {
      phase: 'LINT',
      objective: 'Verify code quality and catch issues - QUALITY ASSURANCE PHASE',
    
      directiveInstructions: [
        '🔴 MANDATORY: You MUST run all relevant linters and type checkers',
        '📊 REQUIRED: You MUST document all errors and warnings',
        '🎯 CRITICAL: You MUST prioritize errors over warnings',
        '📋 ESSENTIAL: You MUST prepare for ITERATE phase if issues found',
        '📁 BLOCKING: You MUST create comprehensive lint report'
      ],
    
      instructions: [
        'Identify and run all relevant code quality tools',
        'Execute linters, type checkers, and style checkers',
        'Document all errors with specific error messages',
        'Catalog warnings and assess their importance',
        'Prepare prioritized list for iteration if needed'
      ],
    
      requiredOutputFiles: [
        {
          path: 'structured-workflow/{task-name}/05-lint-results.md',
          description: 'Comprehensive linting and quality check results',
          required: true,
          format: 'markdown',
          validationRules: [
            'Must include all linter outputs',
            'Must separate errors from warnings',
            'Must include specific error messages'
          ]
        }
      ],
    
      expectedOutput: {
        lintResults: 'Complete output from all quality tools',
        errorCount: 'Number of errors that must be fixed',
        warningCount: 'Number of warnings to consider',
        toolsUsed: 'List of linters and checkers executed',
        outputFiles: '1 required documentation file created'
      },
    
      nextPhase: 'If errors found, use iterate_guidance. If clean, use present_guidance'
    },
  • Tool schema definition: Specifies name, description, and empty input schema for lint_guidance.
    {
      name: 'lint_guidance',
      description: 'Get guidance for the LINT phase - verifying code quality',
      inputSchema: { type: 'object', properties: {} }
  • src/index.ts:137-157 (registration)
    Tool registration: Includes lint_guidance via spread of createPhaseGuidanceTools() into the main tools array.
    const tools = [
      // Workflow entry points
      createRefactorWorkflowTool(),                 // Refactoring workflow
      createFeatureWorkflowTool(),                  // Feature creation workflow
      createTestWorkflowTool(),                     // Test writing workflow
      createTddWorkflowTool(),                      // TDD workflow
      createBuildCustomWorkflowTool(),              // Custom workflow builder
      
      // Phase guidance tools
      ...createPhaseGuidanceTools(),                // Handles both suggestive and directive modes
      createTestGuidanceTool(),                     // TEST phase guidance
      
      // Validation tools
      ...createValidationTools(),                   // Both validate_action and validate_phase_completion
      
      // Workflow management
      createUserInputRequiredTool(),                // Escalation handling
      createWorkflowStatusTool(),                   // Workflow status
      createPhaseOutputTool(),                      // Phase output recording
      createDiscoverWorkflowToolsTool()             // Tool discovery
    ];
  • src/index.ts:210-223 (registration)
    Dispatch registration: Switch case handling 'lint_guidance' tool calls by invoking shared handlePhaseGuidance function.
    case 'setup_guidance':
    case 'audit_inventory_guidance':
    case 'compare_analyze_guidance':
    case 'question_determine_guidance':
    case 'refactor_guidance':
    case 'lint_guidance':
    case 'iterate_guidance':
    case 'present_guidance':
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify(await handlePhaseGuidance(name, sessionManager), null, 2)
        }]
      };
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'get guidance', it doesn't specify what form this guidance takes (e.g., text, structured data), whether it's static or dynamic, if there are rate limits, or any authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one brief sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or differentiation from siblings. For a guidance tool in a crowded sibling set, more context would be beneficial, but it meets basic requirements.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist and the schema fully covers them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get guidance for the LINT phase - verifying code quality', which specifies the action (get guidance), target (LINT phase), and objective (verifying code quality). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'refactor_guidance' or 'test_guidance', which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools containing 'guidance' in their names (e.g., 'refactor_guidance', 'test_guidance'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific LINT phase guidance tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kingdomseed/structured-workflow-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server